Dramatic moment Iran's only working nuke reactor is BLOWN UP in Israel blitz – as Trump aims crosshairs at ‘Mount Doom'
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
THIS is the dramatic moment Israel blows up one of Iran's nuclear reactors with a surgical missile strike.
Another plant, the infamous "Mount Doom" at Fordow, remains untouched, but could soon face the US's mighty bunker busting bombs if Trump says the word.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
9
9
9
This satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows the Arak heavy water reactor in Iran on Feb. 15, 2025. (Maxar Technologies via AP)
Credit: AP
Footage shows the heavy water reactor - known as Arak but renamed Khondab - lying in night-vision cross hairs during the sixth night of heavy missile exchange.
A missile darts in from above and strikes right at the heart of the sprawling plant.
Smoke and flames erupt from the impact site and envelop the whole facility in a huge cloud.
The site was "inactive" as it was yet to be completed, but the IDF insisted it had to be taken out because it was designed to cultivate plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
read more on israel-iran
SCATTERGUN BLITZ Chilling vid shows Israeli school bus blown to bits by Iranian missile
The military said: "The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development."
High-yield plutonium is a material that can be used to fashion nuclear weapons.
Iranian media reported that air defences were activated in the area and that projectiles landed in the vicinity.
Officials told state TV that the site was evacuated and there was no casualties or risk of radiation.
Alongside Arak, Israel has confirmed strikes on the reactors at Natanz and Isfahan.
An IDF spokesperson later said that fighter jets had also struck the Bushehr nuclear power plant - which is the only working one in the country.
Trump 'has APPROVED Iran attack plans & is ready to give orders' as Israel 'strikes reactor' & Tehran hits hospital
But in a U-turn, the IDF then retracted the claim, with a spokesperson saying: "It was a mistake," and that he could not confirm nor deny that the facility had been targeted.
The head of Russia's nuclear energy corporation warned that an Israeli attack on Bushehr could lead to a "Chornobyl-style catastrophe".
Iran has reported Israel to the the UN's nuclear watchdog over the strikes against its nuclear sites.
The regime accused Israel of "continuing its aggression and actions contrary to international laws that prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities".
After days of speculation, Trump approved plans to attack Iran but is holding off in case Tehran agrees to abandon its nuclear programme, reports the Wall Street Journal.
If given the go-ahead, the plans would see the US join Israel in pounding Iran's nuke sites - which Tehran has warned would spark "all out war".
The UK is yet to declare whether it would stand with the US if it committed, as Attorney General Lord Hermer questions the legality of Israel's action, according to Sky, and Starmer held a Cobra meeting.
9
Israel will need to launch a daring commando mission to destroy Iran's heavily fortified underground nuclear base
9
Trump still refuses to confirm his plans in public, however: "I may do it, I may not do it," he said on Wednesday.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minster, Kazem Gharibabadi, hit back: 'If the US wants to actively intervene in support of Israel, Iran will have no other option but to use its tools to teach aggressors a lesson and defend itself."
Iran's Fordow nuclear development plant is likely to be the prime target of any imminent US airstrikes.
Israel doesn't have the weapons to strike the core of the mountain fortress site, but the US has a fearsome 15-ton mega bomb, known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb, which could bust it open.
Trump acknowledged the US is the only nation capable of blitzing the key nuke site, but added: "That doesn't mean I'm going to do it - at all."
9
Iran's state broadcasting building is a mangled wreck after heavy Israeli bombing
Credit: Getty
9
Israel and Iran have been trading missiles for a week
9
Smokes raises from a building of the Soroka hospital, Israel, after an Iranian strike
The giant plant, 125 miles south of capital Tehran is encased in steel more than 300 feet beneath solid rock and has so far escaped serious damage.
Defence Analyst Paul Beaver told The Sun: 'Israel will need literally to move a mountain to hit the plant.
'It's protected by at least 90 metres of solid rock and has so far escaped serious damage.
'Options are to repeatedly bomb it for weeks until a breakthrough is achieved or a fultline is hit or launch an extremely risky ground offensive.
'But the Israeli military never ceases to amaze - and they may even have troops on the ground waiting to attack Fordow already.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
39 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
No wonder Iran doesn't trust the US. Neither should we
America restored the tyrannical Shah to power. He lived in opulence and lavished enormous sums on vanity projects while his people struggled to afford the basics of life. Eventually, disparate Iranian groups from all across the political spectrum came together and drove the Shah out in 1979. Tragically, the ensuing power vacuum was filled by the clerics: Ayatollah Khameini is in power in Iran today because of what the US did over 70 years ago. Don't forget, either, isolated acts of brutality inflicted by America's powerful military. On 3 July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when its captain, William Rogers, ordered his crew to shoot down an Iranian airliner that was en route to Dubai; there were 290 fatalities, 20 more than caused by the bombing of Pan Am 103 a few months later. Subsequently, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer… from April 1987 to May 1989". You can see why that might stick in the craw of those affected and why Iran distrusts America, as should we all while President Trump remains in office. Doug Maughan, Dunblane. Read more letters • Once again the Middle East has rapidly descended into the maelstrom of conflict. Britain must at this time studiously avoid supporting any of the protagonists. The times that we have previously intervened in Iran, the outcomes were not good. Back in 1953 both America and Britain decided to engineer the removal of the democratically elected President of Iran, Mosadeggh. He had courageously proposed that Iran's oil belonged to Iran and that Iran should control the marketing of it. However, the British and American oil companies did not see this as desirable. So they supported the imposition of the Shah on the Iranian people who was eventually overthrown. Apart from the Iranian intervention should Britain be supporting Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems to have no respect for the tenets of international law in regard to the conflict with the Palestinians? Sir Keir Starmer needs to show the world that Britain is prepared to take a moral stand in the Middle East. The first action must be to forbid the sale of weapons to any of the protagonists. This takes courage but he needs to show leadership on this matter. Ed Archer, Lanark. • When asked whether he had decided whether the US would be invading Iran, President Trump replied that he had not yet decided, adding: "Nobody knows what I'm gonna do". And we should be worried about an Iranian finger on the nuclear button? Tina Oakes, Stonehaven. A deliberate distraction Benjamin Netanyahu's war with Iran is a deliberate distraction from his Gaza war of mass murder, deliberate starvation and ethnic cleansing of civilians and children. The moment Iran retaliated against Israeli attacks, every western government which had begun voicing token criticisms and issuing token sanctions on Israel switched to saying they would help defend Israel if Iran attacked it. Keir Starmer has moved US military assets to the Middle East and refused to rule out 'defending Israel'. Why should we help a government that is committing crimes against humanity in Gaza feel immune to the results of its own actions, ensuring it will continue both wars, when neither Hamas nor Iran could ever pose a credible military threat to Israel? The Ayatollahs are certainly a dictatorship, and hostile to Israel. But Israel and the US are massively militarily stronger than Iran. And the story that if the Ayatollahs get a nuclear weapon they'll immediately fire it at Israel, ensuring that all of them and their entire country will be wiped out in either the Israeli or US nuclear or conventional counter-strikes, is ludicrous. Certainly they praise 'martyrs' including suicide bombers. They're not so keen on personal or national suicide . Duncan McFarlane, Carluke. Our reputation is at stake Countries, like people, are often judged by the friends they keep. How then has the UK ended up being counted as an ally by the mad dogs of the Middle East, Israel, and insisting on our knees that we have a Special Relationship with the mad dog of the West, the USA under Donald Trump? These relationships are taken to extremes, with a willingness to pitch in with America's follies like the second Iraq war and unwillingness to call out unequivocally Israel's slaughter of Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, and to go along with the destruction by Mr Trump in his first term of the workable compromise with Iran on nuclear issues engineered by Barack Obama and supported by us. This cannot stand well with our international reputation, for the blood of other peoples does not seem to matter much to us. We should be grateful for an earlier Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who despite pressures from America, had the guts to keep us out of the disaster of America's Vietnam war. James Scott, Edinburgh. Donald Trump (Image: Getty) Labour's hypocrisy In January, when the Tories put forward proposals for a national inquiry to be held into the grooming gangs scandal, Sir Keir Starmer voiced his disapproval and accused those calling for one of jumping on a "far-right" bandwagon. When the submission went before the House of Commons, Joani Reid voted against. Just over a month ago, based on the review carried out by Baroness Casey, Sir Keir changed his mind and ordered that an inquiry be held. Lo and behold, the MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven changed hers as well and suddenly became an enthusiastic advocate for an inquiry. So much so that she made the following press statement: "If the Scottish Government does not intend to hold its own dedicated inquiry, we need some clear reasons why, not the vague responses we've had so far." This may sound like double standards to you and me but after all the broken promises to deliver change we should be used to rank hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party by now. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. A dubious guarantee I note your coverage of the concept of a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) as a way of achieving the laudable aim of abolishing poverty. Gaby McKay explains the idea and gives some idea of the costs involved, Russell Gunson follows, enthusiastically promoting this benefit ("Call to move toward minimum income guarantee 'urgently'" and "There should be an income level below which nobody is allowed to fall", The Herald, June 18). However, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Firstly, although the word "poverty" is bandied around, what actually constitutes poverty? Mr Gunson defines it as living in a household where income is less than 60% of the UK average. To take an extreme example, if the average UK income was £100,000 per year, then as long as this 60% criterion applied, the poor would always be with us. Secondly, how would it be paid – what mechanisms would have to be set up to ensure its equitable and economical distribution? Thirdly, how would the MIG relate to other sources of income, such as other benefits, paid employment, pensions, dividends and interest? Would it be taxable, or set against these funds? In fact, could it be regarded as the Personal Allowance? I can see Rachel Reeves rubbing her hands with glee if she can start taxing people once their income passes £11,500, rather than the current £12,570. Fourthly, in their desire to talk up the positive aspects of MIG, I wonder if your writers have considered the possibility that the achievement of a modestly comfortable standard of living might, in some cases, reduce the incentives to seek paid employment? Finally, the cynic in me wonders how long it will be before the cry "it's not enough!" goes up, particularly when other figures regarding subsistence have been bandied around, such as the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which advises a minimum standard of retirement living requires an income of £13,400 (£15,800 for London dwellers) per year Christopher W Ide, Waterfoot.
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Under shadow of Trump warning, Africa pioneers non-dollar payments systems
NAIROBI, June 20 (Reuters) - Africa's push for local currency payments systems - once little more than an aspiration - is finally making concrete gains, bringing the promise of less costly trade to a continent long hobbled by resource-sapping dollar transactions. But efforts to move away from the dollar face strong opposition and the threat of retaliation from U.S. President Donald Trump, who is determined to preserve it as the dominant currency for global trade. The move by Africa to create payments systems that do not rely on the greenback mirrors a push by China to develop financial systems independent of Western institutions. Countries like Russia, which face economic sanctions, are also keen for an alternative to the dollar. But while that movement has gained a sense of urgency due to shifting trade patterns and geopolitical realignments following President Trump's return to the White House, African advocates for payment alternatives are making their case based on costs. "Our goal, contrary to what people might think, is not de-dollarisation," said Mike Ogbalu, chief executive of the Pan-African Payments and Settlements System, which allows parties to transact directly in local currencies, bypassing the dollar. "If you look at African economies, you'll find that they struggle with availability for third-party global currencies to settle transactions," he said. Africa's commercial banks typically rely on overseas counterparts, through so-called correspondent banking relationships, to facilitate settlements of international payments. That includes payments between African neighbours. That adds significantly to transaction costs that, along with other factors like poor transport infrastructure, have made trade in Africa 50% more expensive than the global average, according to the UN Trade and Development agency. It is also among the reasons so much of Africa's trade - 84%, according to a report by Mauritius-based MCB Group - is with external partners rather than between African nations. "The existing financial network that is largely dollar-based has essentially become less effective for Africa, and costlier," said Daniel McDowell, a professor at Syracuse University in New York specialising in international finance. According to data compiled by PAPSS, under the existing system of correspondent banks, a $200 million trade between two parties in different African countries is estimated to cost 10% to 30% of the value of the deal. The shift to homegrown payments systems could cut the cost of that transaction to just 1%. Systems like PAPSS allow a business in one country, Zambia for example, to pay for goods from another like Kenya, with both buyer and seller receiving payment in their respective currencies rather than converting them into dollars to complete the transaction. Using currencies like the Nigerian naira, Ghanaian cedi or South Africa's rand for intra-Africa trade payments could save the continent $5 billion a year in hard currency, Ogbalu told Reuters. Launched in January 2022 with just 10 participating commercial banks, PAPSS is today operational in 15 countries including Zambia, Malawi, Kenya and Tunisia, and now has 150 commercial banks in its network. "We have also seen very significant growth in our transactions," Ogbalu said, without providing usage data. The International Finance Corporation, the World Bank's private sector lending arm, has, meanwhile, started issuing loans to African businesses in local currencies. It views the switch as imperative for their growth, relieving them from the currency risks of borrowing in dollars, said Ethiopis Tafara, IFC's vice-president for Africa. "If they are not generating hard currency, a hard-currency loan imposes a burden that makes it difficult for them to succeed," he said. Africa's campaign to boost regional payments systems has found a platform at the Group of 20 major economies, with South Africa leading the charge as holder of the G20's rotating presidency. It held at least one session on boosting regional payments systems when South Africa hosted a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors. And South Africa wants it to follow up the talk with concrete actions. The next meeting of G20 finance officials is scheduled for mid-July. "Some of the most expensive corridors for cross-border payments are actually found on the African continent," Lesetja Kganyago, South Africa's central bank governor, told Reuters during a G20 meeting in Cape Town in February. "For us to function as a continent, it's important that we start trading and settling in our own currencies." Talk of moving away from the dollar - either for trade or as a reserve currency - has drawn aggressive reactions from President Trump, however. After BRICS - a grouping of nations including Russia, China, India and Brazil along with Africans like South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia - weighed reducing dollar dependence and creating a common currency, Trump responded with threats of 100% tariffs. "There is no chance that BRICS will replace the U.S. Dollar in International Trade, or anywhere else, and any Country that tries should say hello to Tariffs, and goodbye to America!," he wrote on Truth Social in January. In the months since, Trump has demonstrated his willingness to use tariffs to pressure and punish allies and foes alike, a strategy that has upended global trade and geopolitics. No matter its intentions in moving to more local currency transactions, Syracuse University's McDowell said Africa will struggle to distance itself from more politically motivated de-dollarisation efforts, like those led by China and Russia. "The perception is likely to be that this is about geopolitics," he said.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Is Iran about to choke the West's energy supply?
Nato has learned nothing from Russia's energy blackmail – and Iran is about to prove it. With precision warheads and hypersonic payloads tearing Israeli and Iranian skies, you might think we're witnessing the next frontier in modern warfare. But it's an old game, played with old rules. And once again, Tehran reaches for its well-worn lever of power: energy blackmail. Already, markets are twitching. Crude has jumped over 10 per cent Senior Iranian officials, including Revolutionary Guard commander Esmail Kowsari, have warned that, if Israeli attacks continue, Tehran will not only exit the non-proliferation treaty (thus tearing up its last fig-leaf of nuclear restraint), but will also close the Strait of Hormuz. That's no idle bluster. A third of the world's oil and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas flows through this 21-mile corridor. Already, markets are twitching. Crude has jumped over 10 per cent. Should the blockade materialise, some project $150-a-barrel oil: a level unseen even during the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Faced with this looming storm, Nato has chosen…silence. There's been the usual call for de-escalation, but Secretary-General Mark Rutte leans on Washington to act. As for the upcoming Nato summit next week, the agenda appears to be more focused on Russia and defence budgets. Iran barely makes a footnote. This is staggering. Europe's last encounter with Moscow's weaponisation of energy should have been a wake-up call. Cyberattacks and sabotage targeted LNG terminals, undersea pipelines, and critical infrastructure. It devastated industrial output and cost Europe hundreds of billions of pounds. Yet Nato's energy strategy remains anaemic, overly reactive and built around tabletop scenarios rather than hardened defences. Space and cyberspace are treated as frontline domains. Energy, bizarrely, isn't. That strategic blind spot has consequences. All Iran needs to do is plant doubt. The markets will recoil. Oil prices will spike. Russia, as Tehran's close ally, will pocket the windfall, doubling down in Ukraine with fresh funds. And while Hamas and Hezbollah may now be spent forces from Tehran's perspective, Iran still has foxes in the field, particularly in Africa, where the Polisario Front remains a useful partner. This is why Nato cannot afford to palm off responsibility to the Americans and sleepwalk into another energy crisis. The economic and political costs are simply too high. What's needed is a harder-nosed energy doctrine. The long-term answer lies in renewables. The West must sprint, not stumble, toward clean energy independence. But in the short term, we must secure reliable energy flows from more reliable partners in North Africa and North America. It also means investing heavily in dual-use energy-defence infrastructure. LNG ports like those in Świnoujście and Klaipėda on the Baltic, sit at the fault lines of the next potential hybrid assault. These sites must be shielded with cybersecurity and military bulwarks, especially as energy routes become prime targets in future conflicts. If one ally's energy infrastructure is sabotaged, it must trigger a collective Nato response Nato must also draw a new red line. A legislative revolution, no less: an Energy Article 5. If one ally's energy infrastructure is sabotaged, it must trigger a collective Nato response. This would signal clearly that energy blackmail won't be tolerated. Of course, this demands more than lofty declarations. Political will is one thing; paying for it is another. Nato's push for 5 per cent of GDP on defence sounds bold until you remember it took decades just to drag most members to the 2 per cent baseline. But for all the alarm it causes with Hormuz sabre-rattling, the Gulf region may hold the solution to the problem, becoming one of the West's most important energy investors. After all, Gulf states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia are awash with capital. They know the clock is ticking on oil. That's why they're pouring billions into renewables, infrastructure, and energy technology across the West. Look at Masdar, the UAE's clean energy powerhouse, which recently raised $1 billion (£740 million) to fund 100 GW of renewables, including major projects in Germany and the Baltic Sea. Or Qatar's 20-year LNG deal with Germany, signed at the height of the energy panic. Then there's ADNOC, Abu Dhabi's national oil company. It recently finalised a $16 billion (£12 billion) deal to acquire Covestro, a German chemicals firm battered by the gas crisis. It's also planning to invest a staggering $440 billion (£320 billion) over the next decade in U.S. energy, spanning LNG terminals, renewables, and petrochemicals. Its current $19 billion (£14 billion) bid for Australian gas producer Santos further expands this global footprint. These are vital acts of strategic underwriting. They help insulate Western economies from hostile actors, and they show that energy security needn't rest solely on the state's shoulders. Private capital, deployed wisely, can be a force multiplier. The U.S. has already secured over $2 trillion (£1.5 trilion) in Gulf investment, so why the sluggishness elsewhere? Nato should be chasing these deals with equal urgency. There's a clear path here: a hybrid strategy of asymmetric leverage, using capital to reinforce energy defences. If Nato can't spend its way to resilience, it must attract the money that will. We cannot delay until the next crisis comes knocking. Because once Iran shows the West how energy can humble empires, every rogue regime will come hunting for the spigot.
